While other MediaPost newsletters and articles remain free to all ... our new Research Intelligencer service is reserved for paid subscribers ...

Subscribe today to gain access to the every Research Intelligencer article we publish as well as the exclusive daily newsletter, full access to The MediaPost Cases, first-look research and daily insights from Joe Mandese, Editor in Chief.

Commentary

Fourteen Million Reasons To Block The Ad Blockers

First the good news, and then the bad. To be honest, both bits of news are fairly bad. Ad blocking was slightly down in 2017 compared to the year before, according to the Association for Online
Publishers (AOP). However, it's still costing the average publisher £630,000 per year, and the overall cost to the entire publishing industry is increasing too.

The Association's Ad Blocking
Audit covers 14 of the country's largest publishers, including The Telegraph, The Guardianand Condé Nast. Although ad blocking was down from 31.7% of ad impressions in 2016, it
was still at 29.9% at the end of 2017 -- let's call it 30%. So that means that around 30% of ads that were trying to make it to a reader's desktop were blocked.

The picture is slightly
better on mobile devices, where 1.3% of impressions are blocked -- although that is up from 0.7% the year before.

In total, across both channels, the ad-blocking rate is 11.6%.
Presumably, that means just over one in ten are blocking ads, but it also means that those people are consuming more content than average if 10% of ad-blocking readers are giving rise to 30% of
impressions being blocked.

Although things are getting slightly better, the AOP's major warning is that few publishers are keeping an eye on ad-blocking rates and the implication for the
bottom line. Without knowing the extent of the problem, the conclusion is that publishers don't put themselves in a position to prioritise tackling it.

So AOP has done the sums for them and it
reckons that the cost of ad blocking is actually up year-on-year to GBP14m in 2017, compared to GBP10.8m in 2016. Clearly we are talking about quality inventory here, which is being valued at a
premium nowadays and so the overall cost of missed advertising opportunities is higher. This works out at around GBP630,000 per publisher per year.

Now, let's admit one thing up front. Some
publishers deserve to have their advertising blocked. They put units across editorial, move spots around to encourage accidental clicks, and basically get in the way of the reader. This has to stop,
and the Coalition for Better Ads has some good advice. It's pretty much common sense and a call for publishers to use ad units that don't get in the way and don't blare out video automatically as soon
as a page is loaded.

Once this is done -- once sites are made less annoying -- it's time to take the fight to the ad blockers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: publishers have
absolutely nothing to lose through blocking digital shoplifters. The only downside is that overall traffic figures may fall, but that is a vanity metric if it includes people who don't pay their
way.

Some publishers are already fighting the good fight, but it should be the accepted norm. If an ad blocker visits a site, they shouldn't expect to get free editorial without consuming ads.
There is a clear exchange in free online publishing, and if one side isn't keeping to the bargain, it's time to switch off the supply until the ad-blocking software has been disabled. It really is
that simple.

I think the AOP has a good point that maybe publishers aren't aware of the full cost of ad blocking, and hopefully this latest report will bring it home to them. Digital
shoplifters are costing them an average of £630,000 each. If that is not enough reason to stop serving up free content to people dodging ads, then I have no idea what is.

It really is
time for some online publishers to grow a backbone and say enough is enough. Block our ads, and you block our content too.

Ad blocking is not an excuse to insult the reader with labels like "shoplifter" or thief. Blockers are convenient tools to cut through the clutter and readers deserve more respect for having a true choice to whitelist or not. Go ahead and block the blockers so they can move on to a less insulting source of information, which they will be forced to do. There might very likely be an upstart, close competitor that seeks to build an audience respectful of all of its readers, not just the ones who consent to be monitized (or succumb to rude labels).

As mentioned, publishers have a lot to do to get their own house in order first and the Coalition for Better Ads is a good starting point. I absolutely make that point first of all. But, still a publisher has nothing to lose from banning ad blockers. If readers don't want to be monetised, how do they expect the content to get to them? It's taking the content without playing the game. So ban them. Publishers have nothing to lose other than not wasting content on what I would call shoplifters and you would label people assuming a right to take content for free.

Douglas, I agree with you on this one. Luring in users or visitors with the promise of free access to content, then selling their "data" to advertisers who badger the users/visitors with intrusive and disruptive ads is nothing less than bait and switch tactics. It's unfair to call these ad blocking audiences "thieves".